no problem. it happens.
elin
At 12:11 PM +0100 11/4/02, Danny Ayers wrote:
> >> Yes, RDF/XML is inexcusably bad and should go.
>>> The rest of RDF is seriously held back because of the XML serialization.
>>>
>>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>>I fully agree.
>
>It would be interesting to hear from the WG why the current RDF/XML hasn't
>already "gone". There are pretty good alternatives from TimBL [1] and Sergey
>Melnick [2] dating from 1999, and there have been plenty more suggested
>since then.
>
>A total replacement syntax would throw out a lot of babies, but instead
>perhaps a separate parallel (WG?) thread could be spawned to work out a new
>syntax that had less surprises for XMLers, avoiding the current ugliness but
>could round trip through XSLT to existing RDF/XML. Current RDF/XML wouldn't
>have to be deprecated. Most of the good work already done on the syntax
>should carry across, and backwards/sideways compatibility would only be one
>clearly-defined process away, which could be implemented in most existing
>systems with a couple of lines of code. The trad XML folks are no longer
>scared and everyone lives happily ever after?
>
>Cheers,
>Danny.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Syntax
>[2] http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/syntax.html
--
Elin K. Jacob, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
SLIS, Indiana University-Bloomington
1320 East 10th
Main Library 011
Bloomington, IN 47405-3907